Edexcel GCSE English Language 2 0 (1EN2) Past Papers 2026

Non-Fiction Texts

Duration: 1h 55m

Contemporary Texts

Duration: 1h 55m

Language analysis (Q3 Paper 1) — the weakest question across all reports

Examiners described Q3 Paper 1 as the weakest performance area on the paper in both 2023 and 2024, with a significant number of blank responses. Candidates struggled to explain the effect of language features, frequently confused word classes (e.g. calling adverbs adjectives), wrote about content and ideas rather than language, or confused the language question with the evaluation question. Generic comments ('this interests the reader', 'this makes the text flow more easily') were prevalent at the lower levels.

Paper 1

Evaluation vs explanation — candidates explain but do not judge

Across all three evaluation questions (Q2, Q5, Q6 on Paper 1 and Q6 on Paper 2), the most consistently cited weakness was candidates demonstrating understanding of the text but not converting that understanding into an evaluative judgement about the writer's success. Examiners in both 2023 and 2024 reported that 'a significant number of candidates had difficulty in developing evaluative comments' and that many 'simply explained their chosen references rather than making a judgement'.

Paper 1, Paper 2

Structure analysis in Paper 2 Q4 — frequently omitted or superficial

Both Paper 2 reports identify structure as a key discriminator and a frequent weakness. Many candidates wrote valid language analysis but ignored structure entirely, resulting in a hard cap at Level 2. Others attempted structure only by noting short sentences or lists, without discussing the broader development and shifts across the text. Examiners specifically noted that discussing changing emotions and narrative development across the text was 'a great way' to address structure — but many candidates missed this approach.

Paper 2

Synthesis in Q5 Paper 2 — too few similarities, or insufficiently distinct

Candidates frequently provided fewer than three similarities (limiting to Level 1), or made three points that were essentially variations of the same observation. The requirement for three distinct, evidenced similarities — each focused on the specific question asked — was a consistent weakness in both 2023 and 2024. Responses that approached Q5 as a broad 'what the texts have in common' exercise rather than a focused evidenced comparison scored in the lower levels.

Paper 2

Comparison in Q6 Paper 2 — focusing on content rather than perspectives

Examiners in both 2023 and 2024 noted that many candidates at the lower-to-middle level made comparisons about the texts' content ('both texts describe sport') rather than comparing the writers' perspectives and attitudes and HOW those perspectives were conveyed. The shift from content comparison to perspective exploration is the key discriminator between Level 3 and Level 4 on Q6. Blank responses to this question were also common, with candidates evidently prioritising writing over this high-tariff reading question.

Paper 2

Accurate spelling and punctuation control in writing (AO6) — comma splices, apostrophes, capitalisation

All four reports cite the same cluster of recurring AO6 errors: missing sentence-end punctuation, comma splicing (using a comma where a full stop or conjunction is needed), missing or misused apostrophes, problems with homophones, misspelling of common vocabulary, not capitalising 'I' for the personal pronoun, and random capitalisation within sentences. These errors appear across all ability bands and directly prevent candidates from reaching the top of AO6 levels.

Paper 1, Paper 2

Reading instructions carefully — wrong text, wrong lines, wrong question type

Across all four reports, examiners noted candidates who used the wrong text (answering Q3 with Text 1 instead of Text 2, or vice versa), selected evidence from outside the specified line references, or answered a language question as an evaluation or vice versa. All of these errors result in a reduction of one level (for wrong text) or loss of all marks (for evidence outside line references). These are avoidable errors that cost marks every year.

Paper 1, Paper 2

Developing ideas in writing rather than listing or summarising

In both the transactional writing (Paper 1) and imaginative writing (Paper 2), examiners consistently cited the failure to develop ideas as a barrier to higher levels. Candidates at the lower end would connect points but not develop them, write general overviews rather than specific, detailed arguments, or in imaginative writing, simply relay events without craft or effect. Examiners noted that 'connected but did not develop ideas enough' was a recurring less-successful feature across all four report series.

Paper 1, Paper 2